itt: evolution and trolling

[milosh]

If someone said to you...
"Why does that plane fly?"
And you said "Because the designer made it that way?" you may be right,
but it wouldnt tell you anything about how that plane flys.
You would learn nothing, which is why ID is bad theory. it gives us no new knowledge.

Once again, I don't see where I am stating that "God made it that way", "The designer made it that way"; these comments seem closer to the "It just is what it is" argument being hurled in my direction. I agree it's nonsensical to answer the question "Why does that plane fly?" with "Because the designer made it that way" because even though that answer is correct, it is not informative. If you asked "Why are all the proteins of life composed of only 20 amino acids?" and I answered "Because God made it that way", that would not allow you to learn anything new about the world. However, in proposing a theory it potentially could; My answer might be "Well, if the theory of an intelligent designer is true, we may propose that the designer may have made proteins out of only 20 amino acids so that organisms could digest each other and construct their own proteins."

I am not claiming this particular case is a good argument, but I am most certainly stating that the argument "The purpose of science is not to be bothered if something is 'right' or 'wrong' but to extend our knowledge of the world" is useless. What are laws then? If there is no certainty at the end of science its efforts are wasted.

So either i am god or you question the existence of my desk. Because i just threw stuff at my desk (not realy) and it landed in an exact arrangement.

(1) There is no first and second arrangement, you just admitted we talk about the first arrangement and said the logic remains.

Was this exact arrangement ordered?

What exactly is so perfectly organized about this matter?

At the very base, it is in the right part of a galaxy, in the right part of the solar system, the right distance from the moon with the right magnetic field, it has the right sun, the right atmosphere, the needed amounts of water and other molecules, and the right tilt on its axis to support life. That's at the very base; If you can't see how a leaf, a nautilus shell, or the human brain has organization then I can't see how I am going to explain it to you.

if there is a god it isn't a christian god, the notion of a universal/objective concept having a very subjective personality is, how do you say it, illogical

Hey, Jerome. The book Mere Christianity has a very very interesting philosophical progression about this. It's a good read even for a non-Christian.

[Cops]

please just stop.

[gran guerrero]

I like how my name is in the title of this thread, but I posted like three times, all of which not relevant to what is being discussed.

[Cops]

I like how my name is in the title of this thread, but I posted like three times, all of which not relevant to what is being discussed.

he's trying to save your soul

[Kolar]

I am not claiming this particular case is a good argument, but I am most certainly stating that the argument "The purpose of science is not to be bothered if something is 'right' or 'wrong' but to extend our knowledge of the world" is useless. What are laws then? If there is no certainty at the end of science its efforts are wasted.

There is no certainty, only progress and new information.

At the very base, it is in the right part of a galaxy, in the right part of the solar system, the right distance from the moon with the right magnetic field, it has the right sun, the right atmosphere, the needed amounts of water and other molecules, and the right tilt on its axis to support life. That's at the very base; If you can't see how a leaf, a nautilus shell, or the human brain has organization then I can't see how I am going to explain it to you.

Until we can explore the galaxy in fine detail and find out if life is rare, if intelligent life is even more rare or not then no. Using the Irreducible complexity idea to prove our existence is the result of design is flawed. We could use the same argument to say that it is more likely humans and all life on Earth evolved to thrive in that environment so therefore everything else is invalid case closed. But that isn't the case. The evolution argument doesn't begin and end as it so simply does for ID there.

Edit: also to correct you our Moon was created from a collision with Earth and another body in orbit of Earth billions of years ago.

[DankNuggets]

First off, I'm completely of the opinion that Milosh isn't pushing for ID as explained in The Bible. If he is, I misunderstood and consider my defense unwarranted. Why can't each individual believe in an intelligent design without believing in The Bible's view of what happened immediately thereafter or the mechanics of it?

Second, ID and evolution can coexist in a single theory. Why does everyone think that they are two opposing theories? Evolution is more appropriately called "Origin of Species" anyway because that's what the theory proposes. It has to do with origin of DIFFERENT species, not the origin of life in general.

Thirdly, in all seriousness, there are three frames of reference. The past, present and future. ID explains the past, not the present or the future. Leave that to relegions. Evolution explains some of the past (not the begining) up to the present. Neither explains what will happen in the future, and that's a more important question to any human or animal on the planet.


I'm gonna do my best to answer these questions in the frame of how my view on ID (not The Bible's view) would explain these questions. If evolution (which i've already agreeded isn't the theory to anwser these q's) can answer it, i'll try. If i don't have an answer myself, or if it's an irrelevant question, i'm leaving it blank. I don't think anyone's so arrogant to have an answer for every question.

1. Where did the space for the universe come from? BLANK
2. Where did matter come from? BLANK
3. How did matter get so perfectly organized? ID-when it was created, it was created to fall in line and replicate itself, explaining why all living things are "perfectly organized" Evo-time and probability got it started, then it kept on going.
4. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing? BLANK
5. How did life develop from non-life? ID-it was created, duh Evo-time and probability. While science has replicated a few biological components, they haven't been able to recreate life.
6. When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself? BLANK
7. With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce? ID and Evo - it's been shown that there are species with alternate generations of asexual and sexual reproduction. What brought this about isn't explained in either theory.
8. Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain this?) This is explained by ID and by evolution. It's perpetuating the DNA that's in both the parents's and offsprings' body. And you can't say that it necessarily "wants" to. This kinda gets into the "purpose" of life more than the origin. Shoulda BLANK'd it.
9. What would you have said fifty years ago if I told you I had a living coelacanth in my aquarium? I'd say that evolution doesn't call for the extinction of any precursors to the new species, rather they can coexist by finding different niches in nature.
10. How did photosynthesis evolve? I'm no botanist, but i do know a good bit about photosynthesis. Enough to know that it's a 2 step process much like respiration. Without going into too much detail, it did EVOLVE as far as we can tell from one part(can't remember which one now). How it evolved as the main means of harnessing energy, IDK.
11. How did thought evolve? BLANK
12. Where did the human emotions, such as love, hate, jealously, and moral justice come from? This is more of the science of people than origin of life-BLANK
13. What are the odds that the evolutionary process, proceeding by random changes, would produce human beings, plus millions of species of animals, birds, fish, and insects, all with symmetrical features, i.e., one side being a mirror image of the other? We take symmetry in all these creatures for granted, but is that a reasonable outcome for a random process? When evolution found a path that worked, it followed it (bilateral symmetry). However, there are PLENTY of examples of animals that AREN'T symmetric. (just look at echinoderms&Cnidarins&any other radially symmetric animal) Most of these animals are considered precursers to symmetric ones, ie they evolved. Evolution can pretty much explain this one, but that doesn't count out ID as a factor in it.
14. Why are there 2 sexes anyhow? Evolution. you don't need a third sex, so it wouldn't evolve.
15. If the first generation of mating species didn't have parents, how did the mating pair get to that point anyhow? Isn't evolution supposed to progress when an offspring of a mating pair has a beneficial mutation? Asexual reproduction can lead to evolution as well, it's that sexual reproduction spreads it much faster.
16. How did the heart, lungs, brain, stomach, veins, blood, kidneys, etc. develop in the first animal by slow, minute steps and the animal survive while these changes were occurring? Umm you'd have to look at anatomy of other animals that don't have these organs, and see the problems we've combated by evolving them. Life doesn't need all those organs, so it's possible to survive while developing an organ to cope with a problem. Also, they aren't preserved in fossils as well, so it's harder to understand the evolution of them.
17. Where are the trillions of fossils of such true transitional forms? Idk, good question if you ask me. Find me the missing link!

i guess what i'm getting at, is that it's my belief that the world was created by some higher power, and that it was much different than it is today. I don't believe that a god hand guided the evolution of the human species, but who in their right minds doesn't acknowldge the sheer improbability of all the complexities of the world? It's not BS science to say that there simply wasn't enough time for us to develop all the crazy things that make us what we are. I'm not sure of the # of genes in our DNA, but even if just one changed/ evolved per year, i don't think we'd be anywhere close to where we are now. And i don't think it even changes that quickly. I don't think there was an ark, but i also don't think that all the post-dinosaur extinction flora and fauna would have evolved so quickly without some guidance. What that guidance is, i haven't a clue.

[Kolar]

First off, I'm completely of the opinion that Milosh isn't pushing for ID as explained in The Bible. If he is, I misunderstood and consider my defense unwarranted. Why can't each individual believe in an intelligent design without believing in The Bible's view of what happened immediately thereafter or the mechanics of it?

Because ID purposes that all life, humans in particular were specifically designed and created. No life arose or evolved independently. All species in existence today were created by God 12,000 years ago. Those who push for it are creationist, science and religion long ago settled this as it's only evangelicals today trying to create the facade of a debate within the scientific community. A God which created the universe and setting it in motion is what Deists believe in. That is not Christianity or what the Bible says.

Edit: No one is disputing that our world is incredible and that we can't explain a lot about it yet. Lacking evidence and understanding we should develop scientific (by definition testable and deconstructive) ideas which have neither physical backing (evidence) and logical backing, nor should we base a theory entirely on either alone. I think most people have to settle with their faith, if you believe you are the image of God and that the universe is 12,000 years old then good for you, science isn't the realm you should be playing in.

[milosh]

I'm really not trying to "push" anything. If it seems I am trying to force my beliefs upon you then I apologize for my lack of tact. The purpose of this discussion for me is to expose the unexplainable flaws of the Theory of Evolution and submit ID as a possible explanation.

[Kolar]

But ID has been shown to push the idea neglecting evidence and logic. Everyone who has ever been involved in developing the "theory" has had religious motivations openly.

[Cops]

I'm really not trying to "push" anything. If it seems I am trying to force my beliefs upon you then I apologize for my lack of tact. The purpose of this discussion for me is to expose the unexplainable flaws of the Theory of Evolution and submit ID as a possible explanation.

The only thing you have done is misinterpret the theory of evolution. There I just said what Epinephrine said in under 15 words, case closed.

can this thread be shot down now?

[milosh]

But ID has been shown to push the idea neglecting evidence and logic. Everyone who has ever been involved in developing the "theory" has had religious motivations openly.

What logic or evidence am I neglecting? I see the Theory of Evolution neglecting a lot of evidence and logic; quite frankly there are frauds and exposed hoaxes still in the textbooks. These unscientific defenders of the Theory have more religious motivations than me.

"Evolution is unproved and is unprovable. We
believe in it because Creation is unthinkable." - Sir Arthur Keith

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten...277/5331/1435a

"I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader?"
-Dr. Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, in letter to Luther Sunderland, April 10, 1979. Cited in: Sunderland, Luther D., Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems (El Cajon, CA: Master Books, 1988), p. 89.

"...Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils... You say I should at least 'show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.' I will lay it on the line - there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument."
-Dr. Colin Patterson, ibid.

"Biologists are simply naive when they talk about experiments designed to test the theory of evolution. It is not testable. They may happen to stumble across facts which would seem to conflict with its predictions. These facts will invariably be ignored and their discoverers will undoubtedly be deprived of continuing research grants."
-Professor Whitten (Professor of Genetics), University of Melbourne, Australia, 1980 Assembly Week address.

"The gaps are gone, but the links remain -- missing."
-Douglas Dewar.

"To improve a living organism by random mutation is like saying you could improve a Swiss watch by dropping it and bending one of its wheels or axis. Improving life by random mutations has the probability of zero."
-Albert Szent-Gyorgi, Nobel Laureate (Medicine, 1937)

"Nine-tenths of the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense, not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by facts. This museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views. In all this great museum, there is not a particle of evidence of the transmutation of species."
-Dr. Etheridge, senior paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History, cited in Dr. Scott Huse, The Collapse of Evolution.

"So heated is the debate that one Darwinian says there are times when he thinks about going into a field with more intellectual honesty: the used-car business."
-Sharon Begley, "Science Contra Darwin," Newsweek, April 8, 1985, p. 80.

[Kolar]

"I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader?"
-Dr. Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, in letter to Luther Sunderland, April 10, 1979. Cited in: Sunderland, Luther D., Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems (El Cajon, CA: Master Books, 1988), p. 89.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/patterson.html

"The gaps are gone, but the links remain -- missing."
-Douglas Dewar.

"He was a creationist and in 1957 he wrote The Transformist Illusion (Dehoff Publications, Tennessee; 1957; 306 pp.) in which he attempted to show the failure of evolution using examples such as the probability of proteins arising out of random mixing and blood group incompatibilities, many of the objections that were pointed out as incorrect by reviewers.[3]"


We arm chair warriors are not going to contribute to advancing biological sciences. Again if any of this was credible it would have been reviewed by the scientific community, the fact remains ID can not follow the basic tenets of the scientific method. It's just not going to happen.

[milosh]

I'm not expecting to come to an agreement with you here, Kolar. The article and quotes I used may not have the best sources, but neither has your article been found completely without contradiction. You are correct in assuming that we can't possibly find the bottom of the matter from the comfort of our own homes, but this was never my intention. My intention is to express the possibility of ID instead of leaving it as an irrefutable impossibility; the rest you can call fantasy, religion, a fairy-tale, or whatever choice words you choose to. My purpose is to allow people to think critically for themselves instead of being told what to think by a Theory that has no definite proof but speculation. I have no complaints with ceasing this discussion at this point as I have no agenda to force you all to conform to a set of beliefs I hold.

[Fluffz]

Was this exact arrangement ordered?

No. Your questions indicates your logic requires an order to work. Your argument is: This reality has order IF this reality is ordered.

It is impossible to randomly create order because randomness creates no order
It is impossible to randomly create order

There is simply no truth in your argumentation at all.

[milosh]

No. Your questions indicates your logic requires an order to work. Your argument is: This reality has order IF this reality is ordered.

It is impossible to randomly create order because randomness creates no order
It is impossible to randomly create order

There is simply no truth in your argumentation at all.

Just wow. It's hopeless.